Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac Mini with Apple Silicon = Big
- Thread starter MBX
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Should be alright for a general-purpose/run-of-the-mill machine where you're not doing much. For anything more intensive, I'd look at one of the existing Intel configs (or wait until the HD M1 ones come out)
That's what I thought. But - if I'm reading this correctly - Parallels with Windows is going to run under Rosetta. That sounds pretty crazy, surely there would be a huge performance hit. But the ARM Macs are supposed to be much faster, so maybe it could actually be usable?
Are Fusion and Parallels dead with M1?
Hi all, As one dependent on a Fusion setup with Windows, I would really like to know, if there is any chance that Fusion or Parallels will be able to work around the M1 structure and have their system up and running under Rosetta 2.0. Any chance? Morten
forums.macrumors.com
A lot of people are making all sorts of assumptions about the power and capability of these machines. For all we know 16GB of blazing fast SoC memory may outperform (even with caching) a 32gb intel config. Who knows until we know.
This is a physical memory limitation. You cannot run out of 32Gb of memory quicker than 16Gb. 16Gb = 16Gb. The End.
If someone has, say, a 24Gb file they need to load into Photoshop, it ain’t going to load into 16Gb of physical memory, no matter what the architecture is. It will start to page out to disk, and that is that.
Nowhere does it says Parallels with Windows. As I posted in that thread, all it says is a UB version of Parallels will run and mentions Linux. All that means is that you can virtualize Linux on ARM. It doesn't mention anything about the emulation necessary to run X86 operating systems, especially Windows. We need VirtualPC (the emulator from PPC days) back.That's what I thought. But - if I'm reading this correctly - Parallels with Windows is going to run under Rosetta. That sounds pretty crazy, surely there would be a huge performance hit. But the ARM Macs are supposed to be much faster, so maybe it could actually be usable?
Are Fusion and Parallels dead with M1?
Hi all, As one dependent on a Fusion setup with Windows, I would really like to know, if there is any chance that Fusion or Parallels will be able to work around the M1 structure and have their system up and running under Rosetta 2.0. Any chance? Morten
I'm glad we have so many experts here. It's kind of weird that Apple just kind of winged it when they made the M1 and didn't hire anyone who knew about this stuff. Maybe they should have posted for jobs here with Macrumors 6502 certificate required. Instead they probably got some guy that went to years of school that knows less than a Macrumors newbie certificate holder. Oh well maybe next time 🤷♂️
Your sarcasm falls flat in the face of a company that has repeatedly shown that they are fallible and unwilling to admit mistakes until they are literally forced to as well as willing to act in their own interests over that of their customers.
Maybe you should be running Apple? I bet you could teach Tim Cook a thing or two about how to run a multi billion dollar company. I mean their products are just not selling, their stock is going down and I'm pretty sure they're on the bottom when it comes to customer satisfaction. I definatly wouldn't have just ordered an iPhone 12 Pro Max, Apple Watch S6 and surely I'm not interested in buying a computer from such a company like Apple. I mean their sales just have to be terrible right now....
I think I'm doing the sarcasm pretty good BTW
While that may be true statement, that no iPhones can be ordered with 16 GB of memory, I don't think it is for the reason you think it is ...
The iPhone 12 Pro models have 6GB of memory, and the non-Pro models 4 GB. You really are confusing memory with storage.
You're absolutely right. No one should ever question anything a company does because the people running it always know better than anyone else. They never, ever make any mistakes or screw people over. The only thing that matters is how much money they make.
Please, spare me. Just because something is good doesn't mean it can't be better. A laundry list of mistakes over the history of the company is proof of that.
The first Apple Silicon Geekbench results are in â and theyâre damn impressive
The first ever Apple Silicon Geekbench results are in and, well, let's put it this way: things are beginning to look very rosy for the company.
thenextweb.com
Why would the MacBook Air beat the MacMini in Geekbench??? Especially in multi-core?
I would take these results with a grain of salt since AS Macs haven't been delivered yet. Sure this could be some type of early review sample but who's to say it's setup the same as the retail model. I would suspect the Air will get similar performance to the mini with short tasks. I'm not sure how long Geekbench runs but the mini has an active cooling solution so common sense says they didn't put it there if it didn't benefit performance. If it didn't need this they would be bragging about a fanless Mac mini.The first Apple Silicon Geekbench results are in â and theyâre damn impressive
The first ever Apple Silicon Geekbench results are in and, well, let's put it this way: things are beginning to look very rosy for the company.
Why would the MacBook Air beat the MacMini in Geekbench??? Especially in multi-core?